Welcome and General Meeting Procedures

Welcome to the Passenger-Only Ferry Study Updates – Webinar 3

• This is a listen-only webinar • Please use the chat feature for questions or comments – please do not use the “raise hand” feature • Questions or comments will be placed in a queue for PSRC staff to read and provide answers at appropriate times during the webinar • Please note: the meeting is being recorded, and the chat box is part of the public record Puget Sound Passenger-Only Ferry Study December 15, 2020 Webinar 2020Title Puget Sound Passenger-Only Ferry Study

Overview of Project Scope: • 12-County Puget Sound Region, including Lake Washington and Lake Union • Analyze potential new passenger-only routes: • Terminal locations and capacity • Passenger demand/ridership • Capital and operating elements • Assess environmental aspects of POF service • Conduct early, inclusive, and continuous outreach PugetTitle Sound POF Study Schedule

*

We are here AgendaTitle

1. Overall Study Findings • Overall POF • Electrification • Engagement • Cross-regional * Pause for Questions * 2. Route Profiles and Findings • Review of Route Analysis Approach • Review of Previously Shared Route Findings • Route Profile Assumptions * Pause for Questions * • Route Profiles • Route Findings 3. Next Steps in Implementation * Pause for Questions * OverallTitle Passenger-Only Ferry Study Findings

Importance of time-competitive travel . Regardless of route type

Route characteristics are specific to the route. . Vessel speed, confined waterways, currents, wind action, multimodal connections

POF service operates in a unique marine environment. . Tribal treaty rights . Sensitive habitat and marine mammal protection . Marine traffic

POF improves transportation resiliency. . System redundancy . Emergency response ElectrificationTitle Findings

Electrification potential for most routes is generally low with current technology.

Low and zero emissions technologies are rapidly evolving. . Hydro foils . Alternative power . Battery advancements

Regional efforts can be taken to advance electrification. . Standardization of terminal infrastructure . Standardization of vessel charging systems . Harmonization of utility rates for mass transportation EngagementTitle Findings

There is generally public interest and enthusiasm for POF service. . Positive feedback on potential time savings, route directness, additional modal options, and resiliency. . Reactions vary by community, ranging from strong community support on one end to concerns about compatible with community vision/uses on waterfront on the other end of the spectrum.

Induce demand that could serve multiple purposes, including economic development, tourism.

Each potential route is unique and requires community engagement to implement. . Concerns relating to specific terminal locations, modal connections, and parking. CrossTitle -Regional Findings

Further siting identification and analysis Common marine environmental is needed for all sites in Seattle. considerations may require further . Seattle (downtown) evaluation. . Lake Washington . Wake impacts . Lake Union . Protected species- marine mammals . Sensitive shoreline vegetation . Noise Tribal coordination is an essential . Air quality element in nearly all waterfront development. . Tribal fishing rights Examine equity in each stage of POF . Culturally sensitive shoreline properties planning and implementation. . Community engagement . ORCA LIFT ** Indicates study-wide priority SteppedTitle Analysis Approach * Indicates regional priority

** * * * StepsTitle 1 through 3 StepTitle 3 Findings

Highest priority elements Secondary priority elements Relative Travel Time Existing Commute Potential Commute Modal Connections Recreational Modal Connection Savings Demand Demand Support Criteria Quality Potential Distance Resiliency Seaworthiness RANK ● : High score ● : Middling score *Tacoma – Seattle ● ● ● ● ● - ● ○ - 1 ○ : Low score

Suquamish – Seattle ● ● ● ○ ● - ● ● - 2 :POF travel time is longer *Bellingham – Friday Harbor ● ○ ○ ● ● ● ● ● - 3 than the competitive *Kirkland – UW ○ ● ● ● ● - ● ○ - 4 mode Gig Harbor – Seattle ● ● ● ○ ● - ● ● - 4 : Less 0.5 points : Less 1 point *Kenmore – UW ● ● ● ● ● - ● ○ - 6 *Whidbey – Everett ● ○ ○ ● ● - ● ● - 7 *Renton – SLU ● ● ● ● ● - ● ○ - 8 *Renton – UW ● ● ● ● ● - ● ○ - 9 Shilshole – Seattle ● ● ● ● ○ - ○ ○ - 10 Port Townsend – Seattle ● ○ ○ ○ ● ● ○ ● 10 Southworth – Des Moines ● ○ ○ ○ ● - ● ● - 12 Everett – Seattle ○ ● ● ○ ● - ○ ○ - 13 Port Angeles – Seattle ● ○ ○ ● ● - ● ● 14 Whidbey – Seattle ● ○ ○ ○ ● - ● ● - 15 Orcas Island – Bellingham ● ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ● ● - 16 Port Townsend – Bellingham ● ○ ○ ○ ● ○ ○ ● 17 Fremont – SLU ● ● ○ ○ - ○ ● -- 18 RouteTitle Profiles Tacoma – Seattle Bellingham – Friday Harbor Whidbey – Everett Lake Washington/Lake Union Routes . Kenmore – UW . Kirkland – UW . Renton – UW . Renton – South Lake Union RouteTitle Profiles

Key Assumptions Service levels . Commute: 3 round trips per each peak (AM/PM) commute period . Discretionary: seasonal and periodic trips . Point-to-point service Travel Time . Slowdown zones and maneuvering time included. . Compared to existing competing mode (car, bus or rail) Ridership estimates . 2018 as a base year (using Soundcast), assuming start-up service . Additional induced demand may be realized outside of estimates Costs . Uses best known information . Includes operating costs only . Revenue and funding are not included . Landing and maintenance site lease, acquisition and improvement is not included TacomaTitle – Seattle

OPERATING PROFILE - Commute service - Foss Waterway slowdown - Hourly departures (4.3 knots) (3 AM peak & 3 PM peak) - Commencement Bay - Top service speed of 35 knots slowdown (12 knots)

FLEET TacomaTitle – Seattle

TACOMA 11TH STREET DOCK SEATTLE WATERFRONT

- Overwater improvements, ticketing, & - Capacity constraints signage - Varying levels of infrastructure - Federal, state, & local approvals investment TacomaTitle – Seattle

RIDERSHIP COST SUMMARY

ENVIRONMENTAL - Environmental permitting RESILENCY - Habitat and wake - Alternative to I-5 corridor assessment - System redundancy - Electrification potential TitleTacoma – Seattle

COMMUNITY OUTREACH - Tacoma community - Seattle landings 8% 48% connections - Competing modes

- Ruston option 5% 39% North Sound Peninsula Puget Sound HURDLES Thurston - POF landing capacity limitations in Seattle - Low potential for electrification with current technology - Increased capital costs of fleet size

OPPORTUNITIES + High community interest + Previous feasibility study + Kitsap Transit’s Seattle Terminal Siting Study + City of Des Moines Study BellinghamTitle – Friday Harbor

OPERATING PROFILE - Recreational/discretionary service - Seasonal (4 round trips a day) - Top service speed of 35 knots - Friday Harbor Marina Entrance slowdown (7 knots)

FLEET BellinghamTitle – Friday Harbor

BELLINGHAM FAIRHAVEN FRIDAY HARBOR MARINA STATION

- Ticketing & signage - Ticketing & signage - Local approvals - Local approvals BellinghamTitle – Friday Harbor

RIDERSHIP COST SUMMARY

ENVIRONMENTAL RESILENCY - Environmental permitting - Ferry-dependent community - Electrification potential - Access to mainland medical and other services - System redundancy BellinghamTitle – Friday Harbor

HURDLES - Sea states - Low projected ridership

OPPORTUNITIES + High community interest + Economic development opportunity + Resiliency contribution + Potential pilot service + Align with regional planning COMMUNITY OUTREACH North Sound Peninsula Puget Sound + Potential for year-round - Day trips - Additional stops Thurston service and/or service to 89% - Financial feasibility - Bicycle connections 23% additional stops - Reliability and space on vessel 16% 7% WhidbeyTitle – Everett

OPERATING PROFILE - Commute service - Hourly departures (3 AM peak & 3 PM peak) - Top service speed of 35 knots - Jetty Island slowdown (7 knots)

FLEET WhidbeyTitle – Everett

WSF CLINTON TERMINAL EVERETT GUEST DOCK 1

- In-water and overwater, ticketing, - Ticketing & signage & signage - Local approvals - Federal, state, and local approvals WhidbeyTitle – Everett

RIDERSHIP COST SUMMARY

ENVIRONMENTAL - Environmental permitting RESILENCY - Habitat evaluation - Bridge- and ferry-dependent - Electrification potential community - Access to mainland medical services - System redundancy WhidbeyTitle – Everett

HURDLES - Everett transit connections - Low projected ridership

OPPORTUNITIES + High potential for electrification + Align with Clinton redevelopment + Possible private operator partnership + Proximity to Naval Station COMMUNITY OUTREACH 6% North Sound Everett 6% Peninsula Puget Sound + Potential Hat Island Ferry - More connections - Parking Thurston 8% 3% partnership - Transit access in Everett - Governance - Clinton rideshare - Navy and USCG proximity LakeTitle Washington/Lake Union

OPERATING PROFILE - Commute service - Hourly departures (3 AM peak & 3 PM peak) - Top service speed of 28 knots - Webster Point to SLU, SR-520 Bridge, and I-90 Bridge slowdowns (7 knots) LakeTitle Washington/Lake Union

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SOUTH LAKE UNION

- Overwater improvements, ticketing, & - Capacity constraints signage - Varying levels of infrastructure - Federal, state, & local approvals investment LakeTitle Washington/Lake Union

KENMORE KIRKLAND RENTON

- In-water and overwater - Ticketing & signage - Ticketing & signage improvements, ticketing, - Local approvals Local approvals & signage - - Federal, state, & local approvals LakeTitle Washington/Lake Union

RESILENCY RIDERSHIP - Alternative to I-90 & SR-520 bridges - System redundancy 129,700 147,700 39,600 47,600

ENVIRONMENTAL - Environmental permitting COST SUMMARY - Habitat and wake evaluation LakeTitle Washington/Lake Union

COMMUNITY OUTREACH

Lake Washington Communities

- Transit dollars - First/last mile connections - Development challenges and - Consider equity opportunities

Seattle-side

- UW crew - Recreational craft - Pedestrian connections - Grant restrictions - ORCA/U-PASS - Recreational/transportation uses LakeTitle Washington/Lake Union RouteTitle Findings

Existing landing infrastructure could potentially be used for pilot service.

Landing sites in Seattle require additional analysis and planning.

Vessel sizes vary by route type. . Puget Sound . Lake routes RouteTitle Findings

Some landings have experienced recent growth that could have noteworthy impacts on potential travel demand.

All routes need to comply with operating protocols. . Marine mammals . Slow down zones . Wake wash RouteTitle Findings

Fuel price is a key driver for route costs. . Emerging and evolving technologies

Efficiencies could be realized by partnering with an existing operator. . King County Water Taxi . Kitsap Fast Ferries NextTitle Steps for POF Implementation

Local . Incorporate the route and associated facilities into regional transportation plan(s): local comprehensive plan(s) and other appropriate implementer plans (transit agency, port, etc.). . Develop a business and implementation plan.

State . The State can continue to support policy work and explore funding provisions to ensure local jurisdictions have the tools they need to support implementation.

Federal . Investigate funding opportunities. NextTitle Steps—

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 QuestionsTitle and For More Information

To review the draft report, please visit: https://www.psrc.org/passenger-ferry-study

Deadline for feedback: December 28th, 2020

Your input continues to strengthen this study. Please keep in touch through our listserv and the project website.

Please contact [email protected] to be added to the project stakeholder email list. Thank you.

Kristen Kissinger, AICP Gil Cerise, AICP KPFF Consulting Engineers [email protected]